|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Nonsense, utter nonsense.
That there were two states, Israel and Judah are facts supported by actual evidence outside the Bible. Further the Exodus had NOTHING to do with the creation of a nation state called Israel but rather of a people identified as Hebrews. Have you ever even read the Bible stories or studied anything about the history of the area? Edited by jar, : change people identified as Israelites to hebrewsAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
jar,
On the religious side, one still needs to provide support for their position. If one says that the Bible says "blah blah", then one needs to provide the scripture that supports that statement. If someone says that facts are supported by actual evidence outside the Bible, then that evidence needs to be provided. Please provide support for your comments. ThanksAdminPD Please do not reply to this post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:As Arach pointed out in Message 54, per the Bible, Israel was formed from Jacob and his twelve sons. (Genesis 35:9-13) Even if the stories in Genesis are fiction or partial fiction, there are books in the Bible that refer to books outside the Bible that supposedly may have been more historical in nature.
Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (lost/missing) and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah ("2 Chronicles" in the Christian Old Testament or "Divrei Hayamim II" in the Hebrew Tanakh) are mentioned in the Books of Kings (1 Kings 14:19, 14:29). They are said to tell of events during the reigns of Kings Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah, respectively. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is again mentioned in 1 Kings 16:20 regarding King Zimri, and many other times throughout 1 and 2 Kings. Books of Kings In brief outline the sources of the books appear to have been these: I Kings i. and ii. are extracted bodily from an early court history of David's private life, which is largely used in II Sam. ix.-xx. The editor (Rd) has added notes at ii. 2-4 and 10-12. For the reign of Solomon the source is professedly"the book of the acts of Solomon" (xi. 41); but other sources were employed, ... Books of Chronicles (1) An earlier historical work cited as: "The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (II Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26, xxviii. 26); "The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah" (ib. xxvii. 7, xxxv. 26); "The Acts of the Kings of Israel" (ib. xxxiii. 18); and perhaps also as "The Midrash of the Book of Kings" (ib. xxiv. 27). IMO, the Exodus story is a creative way to relate how the tribes came to be where they were. If the story hadn't been written, the tribes would still have been where they were and probably were there before it was written. Like I pointed out in Message 44, storytelling has a purpose and was very important in ancient times. Storytelling was a creative way to make a point and make the info more memorable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1403 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
I have seen a few Christians claim that many of what appears to be historical documents in the bible, actually did not occur at all.
=============== What makes think that except for your own faith or based on the fallacy that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? It's pretty safe to say that the most parts of human history (of 1000 more nations and over up to 5000 years) are not evidence base. You choose to believe what the historians wrote, that's the case. In the case that you acquired the evidence, it can only be a bonus. Still the most parts of it are without the so-called evidence. It's actually a process of witnessing, that is, to some parts of human history you have to trust what was written by other humans. Religions behave the same way, it is because so that a true must have a criteria in choosing His witnesses and to set up rules to ban false witnessing. Christian God could be the only God doing so. Other gods don't seem to understand this nature of history/religion to do the same. Measures taken:1) the scriptures must be witnessed and written by authenticated witnesses such as the formally assigned prophets or apostles. 2) through the commandments the Jews were educated not to bear false witnessing. This is to prepare the prophets (OT) to bear witness for God, as they are exclusively the Jews. Thus in the Jews culture, a witnessing is valid only when witnessed by more than 1 humans. 3) as for NT, 10 out of the 12 direct witnesses (the disciples) martyred themselves as a witness to what was said and done. And there are several verses saying that "don't do false witnessing". In the book of revelation, it is even said that the liars will be burnt to the Lake of Fire. Other gods don't take such a measure perhaps because they are clueless about what the nature of human history is. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Well put. You idea make much more sense than most of anything else I have heard on this subject.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Hawkins writes:
Treasure Island was written by Jim Hawkins with a chapter or two added by Dr. Livesey. How would you authenticate them as witnesses? the scriptures must be witnessed and written by authenticated witnesses such as the formally assigned prophets or apostles. Edited by ringo, : Spellng.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
purpledawn writes: quote:As Arach pointed out in Message 54, per the Bible, Israel was formed from Jacob and his twelve sons. (Genesis 35:9-13) right; the exodus is the formation of first temple judaism, not the nation. the nation (that is, the people) are merely the descendants of jacob. the kingdom is formed under saul (but mostly david). these are related concepts, so people like to conflate them. but they're separate concerns...
(1) An earlier historical work cited as: "The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (II Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26, xxviii. 26); "The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah" (ib. xxvii. 7, xxxv. 26); "The Acts of the Kings of Israel" (ib. xxxiii. 18); and perhaps also as "The Midrash of the Book of Kings" (ib. xxiv. 27). "the book of the kings of israel and judah" (or "...judah and israel") might well be something very much like the modern book of kings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
jar writes: Further the Exodus had NOTHING to do with the creation of a nation state called Israel but rather of a people identified as Hebrews. er, a people identified as "israel" or "the sons of israel". even the biblical authors like to equivocate the kingdom and the people, so it's not surprising that people confuse them. the "hebrews" would have been a larger linguistic group; all people speaking hebrew. biblically, they are the sons of eber. עֵבֶר = "eber", עִבְרִית = "ibrit" or "hebrew".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1403 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
Treasure Island was written by Jim Hawkins with a chapter or two added by Dr. Livesey. How would you authenticate them as witnesses?
============================================= Do they martyr themselves to say the truth? The point is, by the nature of history itself, most part of history cannot be 'proven', it all relies on humans' eye witnessing. "cannot be proven" is a nature of history (including the 5000 years of written history of over 1000 nations). You choose to believe what was written by the historians or not. Deal with it. So for something historical, the best "witnessing" is, 1) write a book about it2) martyr as a direct witness to say the truth Whether you believe or not remains one's own choice. If you'd like to say that human history is like a book of "Treasure Island". The question is, since when the book of "Treasure Island" gained 1/3 humans as believers?! Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
So for something historical, the best "witnessing" is, 1) write a book about it2) martyr as a direct witness to say the truth Martyrdom has little or nothing to do with truth and in no way adds any weight to decisions of whether something is true or not. In addition there is very little evidence of "Christian Martyrs" until fairly recently, and in almost all those cases the people killed themselves or allowed themselves to be killed for rather silly reasons.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1403 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
quote:======================== I am talking about the BEST one can do! As by nature, history cannot be proven, generally speaking. As a common sense, no one dies for his own lie. That's the point made by a martyrdom. Edited by AdminPhat, : highlighted quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I am talking about the BEST one can do! As by nature, history cannot be proven, generally speaking. As a common sense, no one dies for his own lie. That's the point made by a martyrdom. Sorry but wrong again. History can be proven or disproved based on physical evidence. For example that the Biblical Floods never happened has been proven. And sure people die for their own ignorance and their belief in things that are false. Look at the martyrs that died because they believed that the Ghost Dance would protect them from bullets. Becoming a martyr says nothing about whether or not a belief is true.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Hawkins writes:
I think you missed my point. I asked, "How would you authenticate them as witnesses?" The point is, by the nature of history itself, most part of history cannot be 'proven', it all relies on humans' eye witnessing. Jim Hawkins and Dr. Livesey both claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events in Treasure Island - but both of them were fictional characters created by Robert Louis Stevenson. How do you know that the "eyewitnesses" to the Bible events really existed?
Hawkins writes:
But how do you know that the book and the martyrdom aren't fiction?
So for something historical, the best "witnessing" is, 1) write a book about it2) martyr as a direct witness to say the truth Hawkins writes:
I'm not saying that history is like Treasure Island - history can be authenticated. I'm saying that the Bible is like Treasure Island - neither is history because neither can be authenticated. Both claim to be written by eyewitnesses but those claims can't be authenticated.
If you'd like to say that human history is like a book of "Treasure Island". Hawkins writes:
Why do only a minority of people believe the Bible?
The question is, since when the book of "Treasure Island" gained 1/3 humans as believers?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
As a common sense, no one dies for his own lie. That's the point made by a martyrdom. And this applies to 9/11/2001 hijackers and to suicide bombers? Yes? They die to prove that Mohammed got it right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1403 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
I think you missed my point. I asked, "How would you authenticate them as witnesses?"
========================================= Why do they need to be authenticated in the first place. Do you need someone to authenticate you for you to write down something your encountered or experienced? -------------------------But how do you know that the book and the martyrdom aren't fiction? =================== As I already said, it's normal that history cannot be proven. At least theologically it is so. There are also historical supports which are written by humans though. =================I'm not saying that history is like Treasure Island - history can be authenticated. I'm saying that the Bible is like Treasure Island - neither is history because neither can be authenticated. Both claim to be written by eyewitnesses but those claims can't be authenticated. =================== So you swallow whatever authenticated by humans? Moreover, who says all parts of human history is authenticated by anyone. Some are just books written at a certain time but authenticated much later as formal history. Even the authentication process itself is not evidence based. It's at best a trust of the historians (by faith should I say). Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024